Exercise Technique
The Exercise Technique Column provides detailed
explanations of proper exercise technique to optimize
performance and safety.
COLUMN EDITOR: Jay Dawes, PhD, CSCS*D,
NSCA-CPT*D, FNSCA
The Long-Lever
Posterior-Tilt Plank
Brad J. Schoenfeld, MSc, CSCS, CSPS, NSCA-CPT1 and Bret M. Contreras, MA, CSCS2
1
Department of Health Sciences, Lehman College, Bronx, New York; and 2AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
THE LONG-LEVER POSTERIOR-TILT
PLANK IS AN ADVANCED VERSION
OF THE TRADITIONAL PRONE
PLANK DESIGNED TO IMPOSE A
GREATER STIMULUS ON THE
CORE MUSCULATURE AND THUS
PROVIDE BETTER UTILITY FOR
THOSE WHO ARE WELL TRAINED.
he traditional prone plank (TPP)
T is a popular fitness exercise used
extensively in both physical con-
ditioning (2) and rehabilitative (1) set-
tings. Although the TPP has proven to
be an effective movement for a variety of
fitness goals and abilities, it may not
effectively challenge the neuromuscular
system in more experienced exercisers
(8,10). The long-lever posterior-tilt plank
(LLPTP) is an advanced version of the
TPP designed to impose a greater stim-
ulus on the core musculature. The
LLPTP modifies the TPP in 2 primary
ways: first, the elbows are positioned
closer together and further toward the
head compared to the TPP. Second, the
gluteal muscles are isometrically acti-
vated to elicit a posterior pelvic tilt,
whereas the pelvis is maintained in neu-
tral position in the TPP. In combination,
98 VOLUME 35 | NUMBER 3 | JUNE 2013
these modifications significantly in-
crease the difficulty of the move and
thus can help to elicit a greater adaptive
response in those that are well trained.
MUSCLES USED
Studies show that performance of the
TPP involves most of the major
muscles of the core, including the inter-
nal oblique, rectus abdominis, external
oblique, erector spinae, latissimus dorsi,
multifidus, gluteus maximus, and glu-
teus medius, (5–7). Although no study
to date has directly investigated muscle
activation in the LLPTP, it stands to
reason that muscle involvement would
be comparable given the fundamental
similarities between variations. Based
on applied biomechanical principles
and implied inference of experimental
research, it seems reasonable to specu-
late that recruitment of the core muscu-
lature would be enhanced in the LLPTP
compared with the TPP. The longer
lever length and narrower base of sup-
port associated with the LLPTP makes
the exercise less stable as decreased sta-
bility has been shown to significantly
increase core muscle activity during per-
formance of various core exercises,
including the prone plank (4,5). Further-
more, holding an isometric posterior
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
pelvic tilt has been shown to generate
greater muscle activation in the lower
rectus abdominis, upper rectus abdom-
inis, external oblique, erector spinae,
and multifidus musculature in both
healthy subjects (11) and those with
low back pain (3). Similarly, performing
dynamic exercise (hip extension and
double straight leg lifts) in posterior pel-
vic tilt increases core activation in var-
ious core muscles when compared with
performing these movements in ante-
rior pelvic tilt or neutral pelvic positions
(9,12). Taken as a whole, the evidence
strongly indicates that the LLPTP pro-
motes a heightened challenge to the
core musculature compared with the
TPP.
EXERCISE TECHNIQUE
To perform the LLPTP, the individual
begins by lying facedown on the floor,
with the feet together, and the spine
and pelvis neutrally aligned. The hands
should be balled into fists and kept in
neutral position (i.e., thumbs up and
little fingers on the floor). The elbows
are spaced approximately 6 inches
apart at nose level. To increase the
level of difficulty, the elbows can be
moved even more superiorly, which
further augments lever length. The

Figure. Long-lever posterior-tilt plank.
individual lifts the body up on the fore-
arms and toes so that the elbows are
kept at an approximate 100-degree
angle, and the torso and lower extrem-
ities form a straight line with the lum-
bar spine in neutral position. The
gluteals are then contracted as
strongly as possible while the individ-
ual attempts to draw the pubic bone
toward the belly button and the tail-
bone toward the feet (see Figure).
This position should be held while
the individual continues to attempt
to maximally contract the glutes.
Any movements that deviate from
the technique described would be
considered compensatory and should
be avoided. For example, a common
error is allowing the hips to drop or
sag when in fact the body should
remain rigid throughout perfor-
mance. Coaches should pay particular
attention to the level of glute contrac-
tion and cue for increased glute acti-
vation if they visually notice a decline
in gluteal firmness or posterior pelvic
tilt. An exercise mat can be used
to alleviate any discomfort on the
distal upper extremity joints and
musculature.
The duration and number of sets
should be based on fitness level and
training goals, and more basic plank
variations should be mastered before
attempting the LLPTP. A basic routine
would be to perform 2–3 sets of 10- to
30-second isoholds. As the individual
becomes more skilled in exercise per-
formance, longer durations, and/or
additional sets can be implemented to
further challenge the core musculature.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
The authors report no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
Brad J. Schoenfeld is a lecturer in the
exercise science program at City Uni-
versity of New York, Lehman College
and is pursuing his PhD at Rocky
Mountain University.
Bret M. Contreras is a Strength and
Conditioning Coach in Phoenix, Arizona
and is currently pursuing his PhD in
Sports Science at AUT University.
REFERENCES
1. D’Amico J, Betlach M, Senkarik R, Smith R,
and Voight M. Return to golf following left
total Hip arthroplasty in a golfer who is right
handed. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2: 251–
261, 2007.
2. Hofstetter MC, Mader U, and Wyss T. Effects
of a seven-week outdoor circuit training
program on Swiss Army recruits. J Strength
Cond Res 26: 3418–3425, 2011.
3. Hubley-Kozey CL and Vezina MJ. Muscle
activation during exercises to improve trunk
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
stability in men with low back pain. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil 83: 1100–1108, 2002.
4. Imai A, Kaneoka K, Okubo Y, Shiina I,
Tatsumura M, Izumi S, and Shiraki H. Trunk
muscle activity during lumbar stabilization
exercises on both a stable and unstable
surface. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 40:
369–375, 2010.
5. Lehman GJ, Hoda W, and Oliver S. Trunk
muscle activity during bridging exercises on
and off a Swiss ball. Chiropr Osteopat 13:
14, 2005.
6. McGill SM and Karpowicz A. Exercises for
spine stabilization: motion/motor patterns,
stability progressions, and clinical
technique. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90:
118–126, 2009.
7. Oliver GD, Dwelly PM, Sarantis ND,
Helmer RA, and Bonacci JA. Muscle
activation of different core exercises.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 3069–3074, 2010.
8. Parkhouse KL and Ball N. Influence of
dynamic versus static core exercises on
performance in field based fitness tests.
J Bodyw Mov Ther 15: 517–524, 2011.
9. Queiroz BC, Cagliari MF, Amorim CF, and
Sacco IC. Muscle activation during four
Pilates core stability exercises in
quadruped position. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 91: 86–92, 2010.
10. Shinkle J, Nesser TW, Demchak TJ, and
McMannus DM. Effect of core strength on
the measure of power in the extremities.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 373–380, 2012.
11. Vezina MJ and Hubley-Kozey CL. Muscle
activation in therapeutic exercises to
improve trunk stability. Arch Phys Med
Rehabil 81: 1370–1379, 2000.
12. Workman JC, Docherty D, Parfrey KC, and
Behm DG. Influence of pelvis position on
the activation of abdominal and hip flexor
muscles. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1563–
1569, 2008.
99